It’s nearly impossible to wade through all of the obtuse nonsense this ditzy republican dumps out of her colossal, breathy trap, but I will endeavour to boil down all the ways she is wrong.

“You can’t or won’t answer questions about whether or not the federal government funds sex change surgery on kids.”

This is a classic example of disingenuous question. For the better part of a decade, Republicans have been using this absurd method to try to “trap” those that they pepper with these types of preposterous questions through what they think is some remedial Socratic method.

How this typically plays out is that a twit like this elected baboon, Nancy Mace, will ask some outrageous question with the hope that the other person will either respond in a prescribed way that will get a response ‘they can use’ (for some nefarious purpose) or will get an emotional reaction that will result in them losing some credibility. Almost always, when the imbecile asking the question is called out, their pre-programmed response will be, “what, it’s just a question.“

This tactic is not all that different from “sealioning.” ‘Sealioning‘ is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of authentic discourse. While disingenuous questions are not exactly the same thing, it follows along a greater rhetorical practice of peppering someone with questions that aren’t meant to get at anything real (or to distract from far more substantial issues). By design these two tactics are meant to waste the time (and energy) of the person responding to the question; or by bating them into an answer that will cause them to possibly lose credibility.

Additionally, these “just asking questions” attempt to make irresponsible accusations acceptable, and hopefully not legally actionable, by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent rather than laboriously proving that, for example, “Is Nancy Mace is reptoid scum?”

I have talked about this tactic (and their closely-related brethren, loaded questions or leading questions and gish gallops) in previous posts. Another not-so-successful but frequently deployed tactic by the legions of the mindless hoard oozing out of the IDW is “argumentum ad nauseam,” which is when someone asks the same question repeatedly to overwhelm refutations.

Know Your Rights. Learn what you are entitled to (U.S. residents)

“Some on the left are calling that ‘gender affirming care.'”

This loaded statement highlights Ms. Mace’s bigotry (and quite possibly her personal incredulity). This term, gender-affirming care, (GAC) is a recognized medical protocol, or a prescriptive term used to easily classify an envelope of treatment used almost universally by countless doctors worldwide and indeed in every English-speaking country.

While Nancy Mace is certainly dopy and not at all well-informed, I suspect that this is more of a case of disingenuously mocking a medical protocol, she loves to kick down, to bully. In today’s example, Nancy is targeting a sub-sect of her constituency; specifically trans and non-binary individuals, and more generally, medical professionals and allies. This lack of awareness is less a ‘genuine oversight,’ though may highlight her apparent lack of research on the subject, and instead, is meant to demean those that properly use a term that may be new to her but is fairly common and straightforward.

By using the word “some,” Nancy is attempting, though failing, to make it look as if this is a ‘new term’ and ‘unused by many,’ or really anyone in the medical profession. Nancy, and many others that attempt this rhetorical nonsense, think that by trying to frame those that use this term are a ‘tiny minority,’ suddenly, the insignificant group of ‘woke people’ that uses (proper medical terminology) are ‘radicals; outliers; the fringe.‘ Maybe even a ‘slight squad of misanthropic ideologues’ attempting to ‘highjack the virtuous American lexicon’ with their ‘wily doublespeak’; a negligible ring of ‘woke libs’ that we can, and indeed must, combat.

Of course, GAC is a common term that has existed for some time. I appreciate those monomaniacs, like the comically uninformed Nancy Mace, rarely, if ever, follow or consume scientific journals. Still, organizations like the American Psychiatric Association have been using this term to classify those seeking several therapies designed to improve the quality of life and well-being through scientifically-informed medical treatment.

Here is a great resource for those wanting to learn more about GAC.

“there’s no scientific data to support it.”

First, please note that Nancy cannot support her claim that ‘there is no scientific data to support that GAC works;’ rather, in nearly all cases, GAC improves the health and well-being of trans individuals.

Fortunately, when once again Ms. Mace falls flat, we effortlessly lap her. There are over 100 years of modern, medically supported data on diagnosing and treating trans individuals.

From Scientific American, “contrary to popular belief, scientific research helps us better understand the unique and real transgender experience. Specifically, through three subjects: (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology and (3) endocrinology.“

The article continues, “nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays the true nature of biological sex. The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change. Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY.“

Of course, this is far too complicated for Nancy, especially given the exceptionally mediocre schools she attended and the academically dubious programs she “majored in.”

I mean, I get it. She’s not a scientist. She’s a hairdo in a gaudy dress. She’s got to pander to a swath of largely illiterate constituents that vote for her out of necessity (because there is an “R” next to her name and only for that reason).

She has to appeal to the most primeval part of the human mind; she has to enrage knuckle-dragging rednecks into finding some reason to vote against their interests year over year. While schools are failing; infrastructure is failing; health care is unaffordable; and with retirement becoming less likely for many in South Carolina’s 1st district, while she’s busy ‘taking one for the 1%‘, she has to give copious reach-arounds to her idiot voters. While cutting taxes for those that could afford to pay a little more; and while Nancy helps to privatize the profits and riches of the United States of America and socialize the losses, she’s got to inspire the Duck Dynasty hill-folk to get out to the voting stations every two years.

Here is a great link for those that want to know more about the history and epidemiology of trans and non-binary individuals.

“chopping off the private parts of a 15 year old.”

Name one case. Doesn’t happen.

“Don’t do it to our kids.”

Which board-certified medical practitioners has Nancy talked to? Can she name even one? Nope. She has no idea of the process that individuals must go through to start something like hormone replacement therapy and many other steps in transitioning, let alone gender-affirming surgery.

This “protector of the nameless, faceless children” only seems to come out and be used as both a shield and a weapon when discussing this specific issue. “Protecting the children” is never raised when reasonable discussions over gun control arise or when policy debates break out over funding school meal programs, education, and daycare. Republicans only ever seem to want to ‘protect the children’ from this one particular matter; otherwise, it’s Mad Max, and the Republicans are hoping for a Thunderdome-type situation.

Republicans have found a common enemy: Me. Other trans people like me. They need a villain they can use to gaslight their dull, unschooled base.

Let’s be absolutely clear here. Republicans are bullies. They bully children. They bully trans women. They mock anything that falls outside their myopic and fucked up worldview. They can’t, don’t, or won’t grasp the century-plus of easily accessible scientific data. They insist on kicking down because kicking up would be kicking at the deep pockets that fund the GOP’s economic policies. There’s something deeply gratifying for the simplistic mind of a neo-con that enjoys finding equity-seeking, marginalized communities and beating them down even further. They find some sadistic pleasure in not being at the bottom of the dog-pile. And even though they know they aren’t at the top of the putrid pyramid; in this neo-liberal, late-stage capitalist era, never will they be, they nevertheless find some loathsome satisfaction in knowing there will always be someone “lesser than them.”

If you liked this article, you might like this – “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE: Prurient Interests & How the GOP Is Adopting Putin’s Culture War Playbook“

To read more about the connection between low IQ and right-wing ideology in Canada, click here.

For more insight into the hypocrisy and ignorance of the Republican party, check out this video.